In Re Grant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• current monthly income, ie., relation to median income, determines applicable commitment period without consideration of projected disposable income
• both a monetary and temporal provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Meek
  D. Idaho· 2007-06-27· cited 22×
• Musselman v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In Re Musselman)
  E.D. North Carolina· 2008-09-30· cited 21×
• In Re Spurgeon
  E.D. Tennessee· 2007-10-10· cited 20×
• In Re King
  S.D. Illinois· 2010-10-20· cited 20×
• In Re Wilson
  M.D. North Carolina· 2008-03-03· cited 18×
• In Re Berger
  M.D. Georgia· 2007-06-11· cited 16×
• In Re Davis
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-07-22· cited 16×
• In Re Ross
  N.D. Illinois· 2007-09-13· cited 13×
• In Re Phillips
  D. Massachusetts· 2008-02-07· cited 11×
• In Re Rush
  W.D. Missouri· 2008-04-24· cited 11×
• In Re Heideker
  M.D. Florida· 2011-06-02· cited 11×
• In Re Moose
  E.D. Virginia· 2009-11-12· cited 10×
• In Re Bardo
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2007-09-07· cited 9×
• Baxter v. Turner (In Re Turner)
  S.D. Georgia· 2010-03-17· cited 6×